Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

puroresu writes "I currently reside in the UK. In recent years I've seen privacy, free expression and civil liberties steadily eroded, and I can't see anything changing for the better any time soon. With people being banned from the UK for expressing (admittedly reprehensible) opinions, the continuing efforts to implement mandatory ID cards and the prospect of a Conservative government in the near future, I'm seriously considering emigrating to a less restrictive country. Which countries would you recommend in terms of freedom and privacy? Distance is not an issue, though a reasonable level of stability and provision of public services would be a bonus."

But to be quite honest with you, with what is going in Iran at this moment, your request seems frivolous.

I know I'm being a bit unfair, and that the mere existence of Iran doesn't excuse any violations into your privacy that you feel exist, but considering what is going on in the world this post seems ill-timed at best.

I think the word "freer" in this case is misleading, it almost sounds more like you crave for a society were privacy is respected and more protected, which I see as a different thing.

But to be quite honest with you, with what is going in Iran at this moment, your request seems frivolous.

Yes, that's always the excuse the statists use: 'sure, Britain is a bloated, high-tax surveillance state where the police are more concerned with screwing fines out of the middle class than protecting them from real criminals and at any moment you can be dragged from your house and locked up for six weeks without being charged, but what about Zimbabwe, eh? You can't complain about Britain when you could be living in Zimbabwe' (though presumably now it's Iran that's the scapegoat).

I fled the UK a couple of years ago, and would never even think of going back unless the Tories throw out everything Labour have done to destroy the place over the last sixty years.

But to be quite honest with you, with what is going in Iran at this moment, your request seems frivolous.

uh no.

Iran is a reminder of what happens when the government becomes too authoritarian and the people finally realize it. You could then notice that one's own country was rapidly sliding down the authoritarian scale. You then have to decide if you want to leave or hang around until the shit hits the fan. You also have to consider that the point where you can freely leave is much sooner than the proverbial shit storm.

You wouldn't shout down the frog in the 75 deg C water for saying "gee it's getting warmer in here" just because the pot next to him is finally boiling. (assuming of course hypothetical frogs that can stand 75 deg C temps some how...)

While I understand where you're coming from, I strongly disagree. The existence of tyranny abroad does not excuse the erosion of liberty at home. Hell, forget Iran, I could think of a dozen far worse places to live without thinking hard, and yet I still see the point of the person who posted the article.

Simply put, the attitude you're expressing, namely "it's much worse over there, so why are you complaining?" is a common one, and very problematic. How is a person in a country that is relatively free, but headed in the wrong direction, supposed to agitate for change in that worldview? There is, after all, always someplace worse.

We, in the rich, safe, peaceful developed world, should aspire to do much better than Iran. We ought to make ourselves a bastion for civil liberties, human rights and responsible self-governance. Iran has a bad situation made worse by factors beyond the control of the average citizen; we have no such excuse.

That being said, my suggestion to the person who posted this article is the improve the local situation instead of fleeing from it. If you are among those who see the current trend as a step in the wrong direction, then fight it. If enough people did that, the situation would change. It's getting enough people to realize this that poses a problem.

LOL. I now earn less than I did in the UK, but my standard of living is dramatically higher... I suspect that's true of most of Europe and North America.

I don't know how anyone can suggest that Britain has a high standard of living, unless you're comparing it to some third-world crap-hole. The cost of living is among the highest in the developed world and you get crap for it.

Why not stay in your own country and fight for those rights? Run as an independent for government. Organize resistance to the plans.

How about Australia or Canada?

I'm in Australia at the moment, broadband prices arn't amazing, and they're trying to implement a useless filter, but generally speaking the police are nice and we're universally known for hating our politicians (more then most countries).

Even if the government wanted to implement some scheme to restrict freedoms, it would mean they would have to a

There's a huge difference in marginal cost between health, education, and the military. Doubling healthcare costs probably won't double life expectancy. Doubling education costs probably won't double the number of geniuses. But doubling military costs may do better than double the size and effectiveness of your units.

The US has defended Canada? The last time Canada was invaded, it was by the US!

Nobody's invaded any of the top 5 countries since WW2. What *did* happen was that the US and the USSR decided to have a series of proxy wars. NORAD wasn't about protecting Canada from the Soviets, but about using Canadian bases as advance posts for monitoring the USSR.

The covert deployment of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil didn't enhance Canadian security - it made Canadians targets.

The Star Wars scheme to intercept missiles during their coasting phase meant that Canada, not the US, would have to deal with the detrius of a succesful intercept.

Did you listen when Canada said "Don't go into Iraq"? Noooo... and how much has it cost since? Both in money, and in reputation, and in lives? You didn't enhance your security by invading Iraq - you inflamed your existing enemies, made new ones, weakened key allies, and disgusted others. It was all about oil. And what's the #1 oil consumer in the world? The US military. Eisenhower warned about this sort of stupidity.

Then again, what can you expect from a country that now classifies pocket knifes - even non-spring-loaded ones - as "switchblades" in a further war on its' own citizens rights, and that, rather than jailing the people behind the global frauds that led to the global financial meltdown, gives them "retention bonuses?" That wants to bail out millions of people who committed fraud by filing bogus mortgage documents, while penalizing those who were honest and sat out the bubble. Only in America, where corporate social welfare runs rampant under the guise of capitalism. It's pretty bad when the US is in so many ways more like the old Soviet Union than Russia is. With more people in jail than any other country in the world, can't you at least find some space in one of those jails for the biggest crooks in the worlds' history?

The US wasn't just protecting other countries - it was also protecting its' own interests, and is currently the largest destabilizing influence - both financially and militarily. With the deficit soaring, and set to double again over the next decade, "too big to fail" is fast becoming "too big to save." Unfortunately, you're taking down the rest of the world with you.

There was a time when the US stood for freedom, straight dealing, honesty, fairness, and integrity. Enlightened self-interest instead of greed. Independence rather than "where's my bail-out" entitlement. Opportunity rather than "your papers, citizen." It took George Bush 2 terms to reduce that to tatters. More than 2 centuries of effort undermined, trashed in less than a decade.

Your war in Iraq didn't contribute to world security - and it certainly proved to be a distraction from getting that bin Laden guy. So much for "mission accomplished." then again, it was all about oil and pork-barrel politics, so maybe it really WAS "mission accomplished" - if the mission was to screw over the American people, blatantly burning through the social capital of goodwill and trust that most people had, overall, for the US.

A generation ago, 76% of Americans said that, overall, they trusted their government to do the right thing. Now? [rinf.com] Unsurprisingly, 80% of Americans said they now perceive their government as serving powerful special interests rather than the interests of the people as a whole.

A Banana republic with a little anarchy thrown in for good measure would probably be the most "free". Obviously, most people would like a little civilization thrown in for good measure. The trick is finding the right balance. My guess would be maybe one of the old eastern block countries. I would have no idea which one though.

I think one of the primary issues is the general lack of interest by the general public in maintaining freedom.

I've had extended conversations with people about why the requirements for air travel are such a bad thing and had them tell me they have no problem bearing their entire lives when they go through the airport -- they even have no problem with people monitoring them by video 24 hours a day if it means that they will be "safe".

Honestly, the general population is so unaware of their circumstances and has so little imagination that they have no idea how bad it can get.

If you find someplace better (I certainly wouldn't move to the UK from the US but it isn't so good here either) let me know.

Power corrupts. This is not just a pithy saying, it has happened time and again throughout history. See the Stanford Prison Experiment for an empirical view, as well. We've already seen the beginnings of this in the U.S.: when law enforcement is given the ability to search people, take away their rights, and lock them up without presenting evidence, that is exactly what they do. Constant surveillance means constant suspicion of everyone, and when everyone is under suspicion, no one is presumed innocent.

You may say that you have nothing to hide, but I really doubt it. Have you ever jaywalked? Gone even a mile above the speed limit? Or not even broken the law, but done something that might be just a little bit suspicious: talked to someone in another country? Snuck some food into a movie theater? Gone for a walk late at night? And how would you feel about a camera in your bathroom? Your bedroom? The voting booth?

Please, explain exactly why the police watching you & everyone else all the time in public is bad. What, exactly, is the problem there?

Are you afraid of corruption? Of a change in the law? Do you somehow think that either one would be hastened or slowed by mere video surveillance of public places?

I'm with the general population -- liberterians who think anything government is bad, or that anything even vaugey orwellian will inevitably lead to Big Brother re-writing the past and instituting a 2-minute-hate, are the unimaginiative ones, reacting like ludditeis smashing machines without ever thinking and actually applying real principles.

Why on earth should you or I be watched by law enforcement in a supposedly free country? Being constantly watched means sooner or later the police will see something they don't like or don't understand. All of a sudden people in a free country (that past generations laid down lives to protect) are having to justify their actions to an authority figure.

The constant surveillance and encroachment on civil liberties has had the effect that we are answerable to the government, not the other way around as it should be in a democracy.

Corruption is obviously a concern, and the recent MP expenses fun and games have shows how widespread corruption can simmer away unnoticed. Giving these people more power over us is not a good idea when they seem perfectly willing to use powers for their own ends. History is full of examples of abuse of power, so restriction of power is necessary.

Video surveillance is just a facet of the encroachment on us by government, and as it is the most visible and widely understood it gets talked about a lot. Considering how small cameras can be, huge great things are appearing on the sides of buildings all over the country. The cameras are an easy solution for politicians to public demands for clamp downs on street crime - demands whipped up by certain parts of the press.

Many people question the effectiveness of cameras compared to other crime reduction measures, like simply more police on the beat, or dealing with poverty. Of course the 2nd 2 are much harder for politicians, and probably won't be very effective before the next election they face.

One of the issues privacy advocates have is that as many people are willing to give away their privacy (because they have been told it is good for them), they are also willing to give away other people's privacy too. Just because you are happy to be watched by some council employee when you do your shopping doesn't mean I am, and it is very frustrating to lose privacy this way. Unsurprisingly people then express themselves dramatically, and try and warn what we could be moving towards. A dystopian future won't happen overnight, it'd be over multiple generations if it did happen, but I don't want to think that I will leave a world going that way at all.

Don't be stupid. There's no such thing as a free country. Sooner or later, they all end up being run by bastards. If you're really looking to be free, I suggest you move as far away from civilization as you can. The only way to achieve actual freedom in this world is to separate yourself from the rest of humanity.

Don't be stupid. There's no such thing as a free country. Sooner or later, they all end up being run by bastards. If you're really looking to be free, I suggest you move as far away from civilization as you can. The only way to achieve actual freedom in this world is to separate yourself from the rest of humanity.

Dave Freer is having to get out of Africa. It's getting very bad there. It is a beautiful land and based on his and several other peoples comments it's like having to leave paradise so he has not been quick to leave.

Don't listen to the crap you might see from the libertarians on/. The USA is a great place to come if your own country is becoming more repressive than you like. Here's my best argument ("best" at 12:30 saturday morning.)

#1: We have rights of expression, assembly, thought, speech, and, yes, privacy enshrined in the Constitution. All the UK really has is the continued good will of the crown (or, if you rather, the respect for history in Parliament.) We do, in fact, have the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) specifically so we can unseat any tyrant who tries to take our rights away.

#2: As a culture, we prize freedom the way Israel prizes "never again" or Iran prizes "Islam". "I just want to be left alone" is the only argument you'll need to get any American on your side. Our two major political parties argue about how we collaborate on things, and where we should extend legal privileges -- NOT on how free we should be. (At least, not the serious ones.)

#3: America is currently in the beginings of its post-Bush era. We do reactions VERY well in this country -- and that means the principle sin of the Bush, era, "sacraficing liberty for security", is likely not to be repeated in the next 10-20 years. If ever.

#4: you'd be in the same country as/.!

#5: From a feudalistic standpoint, you would go from being a subject of a crown to a citizen of a country -- theoretically speaking, from a king's slave to a king's peer.

We do, in fact, have the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) specifically so we can unseat any tyrant who tries to take our rights away.

Oh puhleeez. Seriously? You think the weapons that civilians have on hand can take on the best-funded military the world has ever seen? You know, the one that has more resources than the next five biggest militaries COMBINED? I don't think you've thought about this very seriously. Yes, I know that's the same thing "they" said about facing down the British back in 1775, but we're living in a different world. How many civilians have access to Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters? Cruise missiles? Not to mentio

Seriously? You think the weapons that civilians have on hand can take on the best-funded military the world has ever seen? You know, the one that has more resources than the next five biggest militaries COMBINED? I don't think you've thought about this very seriously.

125,000 troops in Iraq, the a country the size of California (with fewer people, I might add), you'd think we'd have this mopped up by now, except that somehow after the set-piece battle is done, it takes a whole lot of troops & police to create effective positive control over a civilian population. This is something Americans learned after the civil war -- the North won the war but the South very clearly won the reconstruction as the North (unfortunately) had neither the resources nor the political will to police the entire South to guarantee rights to the now-freed-slaves.

The military is a blunt weapon, not one that can be effectively used for fine-grained policing work. This is why the Soviets & company invested so much in secret police, becuase they needed a subtle way to control the masses in a fashion that didn't raise the public ire against them like the tanks did (the Chinese, since 1989 have advanced quite a bit in this respect). The E. German Stassi in particular had a file on every citizen -- this wasn't a massive waste, it was an integral part of a very effective system.

Now imagine that 125,000 man army spread across the entire US (or even just a region of it) with 60 million rifles and 65 million handguns (in 1994, gun ownership has only gone up since, especially after the last election). Even if the entire national guard joined the army (doubtful, many would defect and bring their weapons over the rebels anyway), there's still be ~500 armed civilians for each soldier.

Cites:

"A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted in 1994, indicates that Americans own 192 million guns, with 36% of these consisting of rifles" from wikipedia.

#1: We have rights of expression, assembly, thought, speech, and, yes, privacy enshrined in the Constitution.

assembly: Three words for you - Free speech zonesthought: Didn't we just see a story about a man arrested for possessing child porn that didn't actually depict children?privacy: Well, minus the wiretapping... and the GOP's insane desire to dictate what goes on in people's bedrooms.

Speech I'll give you, though... the US has been pretty strong about protecting speech... to the point that donating mon

We libertarians tend to think we are the freest country on Earth. We just don't have any illusions about it being 'free enough'.

You however seem to have bought into our great myths. I'll break it down:

#1: Our rights to freedom of expression are often curtailed, sometimes with the blessing of the Supreme Court, depending on what mood it's in. Obscenity is still regularly prosecuted. Girls "sexting" (what a dumb term!) are charged with producing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY by taking nude pictures of themselves on

In defense of us Libertarians here on Slashdot I feel that I must point out that we are all about freedom and against violence and coercion. In fact, we have always held the United States Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in very high esteem and wish that our Federal Government would conform more closely to the limited role outlined in those documents instead of experimenting with socialism as Obama seems determined to do. However, as Bush and others have demonstrated, there is really only so much damage that one President can do and in the long run the United States has some pretty well engineered self correcting mechanisms (our founding fathers saw to that when they set the whole thing up). In response to the emigrating author, I would definitely recommend the United States in general and the Free State Project [wikipedia.org] states (New Hampshire and Wyoming) in particular if he is looking to maximize his freedoms. Although, compared to what we see and hear coming out of the UK these days, just about anywhere in the United States is going to be a breath of fresh air by way of comparison. The United States also has the advantage that the residency requirements and path to citizenship are easier when coming from the UK which enjoys the "special relationship" with the United States. So he really should take a second look at the United States; we really do have a lot to offer as a free country.

I gotta say, man, Planesdragon speaks truth. No matter how else we may f**k up, you just can't beat that 1st amendment, and I've never heard of another place which has anything like it. I can stand on the street corner and shout as long as I want that Muslims and queers and cops stink, and several decent people may wait in line to beat the crap out of me, but I have nothing to fear from the state. Even as a visitor, you would have the same freedom. Of course, there's a constant struggle between those wh

Yes. In theory, we in India too have restricted freedom of speech and government constantly telling citizens how to behave.

But, India is such a huge country with huge population that government is overwhelmed. It cannot monitor everybody. And the society as a whole is lot more tolerant. So in practice every individual experience a true freedom and anonymity. This remains true until you become too popular and catch eye of media. Which I think is very less probability again due to huge population. May be 10000 popular people in set of 1 Billion.

A lot more tolerant? I tend to disagree. Maybe there isn't as much government interference, but the social pressure in India more than makes up for it. India is a nice place to visit, but as I foreigner I would never be able to live there. The lack of infrastructure, electricity cuts in most cities, flocks of touts and beggars, men who gawk (if you're female and unaccompanied by a man, even if you dress conservatively), and uptight attitudes towards alcohol and tobacco would take it off my list.

I don't know whether you are Indian or not. But India is HUGE, and you might have experienced just a small bit of India.

It has a place for everybody. From poorest of poor to one of the richest man on earth. You can be atheist or you can be most religious person. There are many saints who stay naked for their whole life, without even getting a second look from anybody. You can belong to any race, religion, caste, creed and still feel at home in India. People may gawk at you, but they welcome all with open heart.

These are sign of open society. May not be open in western civilization's sense, but open nevertheless

India has be described a an elephant as experience by 5 blind people. The blind person touching its trunk may think elephant is like a water hose, while person touching its tail may describe the elephant as a rope, and still one touching its legs will experience it as a tower.

Come and experience the Incredible India. You will get in it what you are looking for. This has been true since the age of Alexander and before.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the stable countries are in the far north and south, and the most unstable parts nearer the equator. If you don't have to plan in order to keep from freezing then you can get into a lot more trouble. People living where there's a cold winter face likely death every year if their societies fall into chaos.

Generally south east asia is pretty good. China is communist, so is Vietnam. But this is really in name only. They do not make any effort at being friendly or fuzzy to the population. But as a foreigner living there, you can say what you want about the government, and pretty much do what you want. They do not want a story about you being arrested on some BS in the international papers.

They are busy building infrastructure so there is no money for fancy ID cards, camera networks, or much spying. Even in china, the internet spying is looking for chinese words, not english..

Language is not a big issue, as the last 20 years english is taught to all school kids.Weather is nice, internet works good, 5 minute walk to the beach, cheap standard of living.

Jokes about "Flight of the Conchords" (and sheep) aside, New Zealand is a modern, English speaking, very politically free and open country.. They are very much a part of the "First World", but so far have avoided many of the more "Police State-y" laws and regulations that you seem eager to be away from.

They have a "Quality of Life" [wikipedia.org] score just below the US and considerably better than the UK.

I would recommend you to go to Montreal, Quebec, Canada... you would love it for sure, as for privacy, services and so on... you will have everything you wish for!!! Privacy is one of the top sensitive subject here, even inter-governmental institution doesn't share personal information on citizen... If there's camera on some street, they aren't allowed to record anything... Here you have nature minutes away, beautiful women on every corner and lots of entertainment... Most of all, you won't find a city offering that much for that cheap!

Be aware that Canada has some interesting challenges to freedom of speech with regards to the political process, including campaign finance limits (note the US has some too) and something about a media blackout of election coverage [nowpublic.com]. There also exist certain "hate speech" provisions (for some criticism, do a quick Google search and/or see here [campaignfreedom.org] here [issues-views.com] and here [renewamerica.us], warning, these sites may contain bias independent of their stance on freedom of speech...
that's kind of the idea behind freedom of speech, though, so I hope you can cope).

The famous american chess player was notoriously anti-american. He fled the US to several countries. You can trace his life as an emigre [wikipedia.org]. It serves as a good guide. The wikipedia corruption index [wikipedia.org] may be of use, although I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I favorite Turkey, Japan, Sweden, Austria, or Denmark. Good luck.

Finland has the best privacy laws in the world, and Finns enjoy a lot of rights, such as "right to roam" [wikipedia.org]. Finland also had women's suffrage in 1906, much earlier than most countries. Finland is also a highly technological nation, which since you post on slashdot, is probably a plus. Most of the people there will speak english to some degree, which should make communicating a little easier.

Finland, however has disadvantages such as, a very difficult native language, immigrating will be tougher than other nations, cold weather, and possible invasion from Russia. If you like Finland, but can't handle the language, you could try a different Scandinavian country, as they all share the same basic values.

See, the problem with emigrating to another country because you won't stand up for freedom is that you have a problem in the first place. You won't safe guard your freedoms. So you move to another country and you will eventually loose your freedoms there too, since you (the people) aren't taking care of them. Freedom is like muscle, if you don't exercise and use it, you will loose it.

So stay my friend. Be that guy/gal, like Gandhi or Thoreau or Rosa Parks.Unless your life is at risk, stay.

I always wonder why in these days nobody is standing up for their values any more, and are simply choosing the herd they identify with, despite knowing that if you don't pay the price of standing up and voicing your concerns, you'll lose your rights no matter where you go?

It is not. It is a random place on earth where he was born. He didn't choose to be there, he doesn't have any obligation to stay there and no obligation to the people who want to make his life miserable. By choosing to move to a better country with more freedoms, being a productive member of a free society and contributing to the prosperity of a better country, he supports freedom.

Let's face it. A lot of the people that say they are leaving a particular place because certain political reasons are just doing so because it's convenient to do so. Apart from people that are really under political oppression, those that emigrate would most likely be because of a better standard of living, weather, career opportunities or to be closer to family and friends, etc.

Slashdot is probably the worse place to ask for immigration advice. If you want to move to a country which has good protections on privacy, free speech and civil rights in general, but you don't fight to keep those rights, then you are a net liability to that nation, whichever you might wish to choose to settle in.

No matter how people of markets as the magical solution to everything, it is unlikely that privacy and civil liberty protections in law was drafted with immigration policy in mind.

Freedom is not a thing, a state of being or something you can achieve. Freedom is a balance; a balance of self and society, a balance between individual satisfaction and collective well-being. When this balance is lost, then to one extreme there is oppression, or to the other there is anarchy.

Oops. It IS his country. He gets to moan about the state of affairs is he tries to do something about them, and if he prefers to just go somewhere else where that's been done for him then he gets to STFU.

And you don't vote with your feet. You vote with the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box and then the ammo box of all the others have been compromised.

You may not realize this, but if as an immigrant in a different country you will be losing rights in a way. Citizens, especially natural born ones have more rights in a country than non citizens.

You would be losing your right to vote, you would have a risk of deportation or not being able to renew for committing a crime that may not be all the serious for a citizen. You will probably have to submit a lot of documentation to your target country.

If you don't like your rights in the UK (which is one of the better countries to live it), just wait until your very ability to stay living where you are is basically at the whim of some bureaucrat.

Of course if you are immigrating from a country that is actually oppressive, you won't mind it.

I am not saying it is difficult to be live in a foreign country, I am just saying if you are someone who is so afraid of big brother, perhaps living in a foreign land is not for you.

I recommend Switzerland. They have the most democratic and fair government system on the planet (from what I know).

The fairness of the election in their capital city is mathematically proven to be the fairest system possible!

The control of the government is very grassroots-style. People have the last word. (Read more about it on Wikipedia.)

The nature there is incredibly beautiful! I recommend living on the hillside of a green valley, with huge mountains around you, with snow on top. In the summer, it is hot. In the winter there is much snow.

And from what I saw, people are very relaxed down there. We in Germany joke about them being a bit "slow" when speaking. But that is only a result of this.

Also I don't think there are many other places in the world, that offer you nice broadband connections, and such a clean nature (with the water you are drinking coming directly from the glaciers!)

Even their military is so cool, they have bunkers in the hills, were they hide their modern fighter jets. And they are so independent, that they don't even need to be in the EU. (As a military pilot, you have a good chance of flying a F-19. At least a guy who actually flew one, told me this.)

The only thing you might miss, is the ocean. For that you have to drive to Italy. (Right below it. At Venice for example.)

My favorite list: Switzerland, Netherland, Finland, Sweden, Norway. I would love to live in Switzerland myself: I love the direct democracy there, the peaceful people and the beautiful nature and very high standard of living.
Another option is to become really rich! Rich people enjoy much more freedom all over the world!

I asked a similar question back before the US elections, just in case Bush, er, McCain won. Someone suggested Costa Rica. Apparently, they're "America-lite." They have similar institutions - three branches of govt - but just not as useless, I guess. Land is supposed to be cheap. It has coastlines on both oceans. I don't know about immigration laws, but it shouldn't be hard to look up.

I live in the US and have looked at migrating to another country. Of course one that speaks english. I am a high skilled worked I guess (programmer/IT) and on paper it would appear many countries would value my skills even though I cannot speak the native language. However in practive I have found it incredibly difficult to do this. There is a metric shit ton of paperwork involved and unless you want to spend a lot of time dealing with it your employeer usually handles it. Also I live on the west side of the US and have been looking at getting a job on the east coast for a change of pace. I'm having trouble even getting a serious look because employers only seem to want to deal with local candidates. So I can't imagine dealing with another country in all practicality.

The east coast companies response of looking for local candidates is simply telling you that they are not willing to spend a dime on relocation costs. Your response for getting past that is to let them know that you are already planning on moving there on your own and that you are simply looking in advance for work in the area. Their reluctance is stemming more from the fact that they are tight on the budget and have no room to deal with things like signing bonuses and relocation costs at this time for any talent that they may hire.

As a former benefits consultant I can tell you that very very very few companies offer relocation benefits. In my anecdotal experience 95% didn't offer their relocated employees anything and I saw data from hundreds of companies. There are usually not even differences between high or low demand jobs, most companies have a blanket benefits package that all the employees get.

Of course companies will make a one off exception from time to time to a relocating employee, but only if they dearly need them and have run out of local options.

That said, it's no skin off of a companies back if you are willing to relocate without any compensation. My guess is they were too impatient to wait for someone to travel across the country and interview two or three times when the process for local candidate would be a whole lot faster.

I live in the US and have looked at migrating to another country. Of course one that speaks english.

Why "of course"? Are you incapable of learning another language? It is certainly a barrier but by no means an insurmountable one especially if you build on one of the foreign languages you learnt at school. Besides there is a non-negligible (but admittedly far smalller) language barrier between English and American so if you do move to an English speaking country you will still have to learn new vocabulary and, if your job involves written reports, how to spell. Failure to do so will provide you colleagues with many hours of amusement....

Find a position in a multinational in the United States and make it known that you are open for international travel and/or work assignments. Most multinationals use English as their working language. You can get by with English in the EU, where the majority of the population speak it as their second language. This is espeacially true for folks younger than 35. In large cities, English is the most spoken non-native language. That said, it will be easy for you to learn the native language once there; emersion is a better way to learn.

I live in the US and have looked at migrating to another country. Of course one that speaks english. I am a high skilled worked I guess (programmer/IT) and on paper it would appear many countries would value my skills even though I cannot speak the native language. However in practive I have found it incredibly difficult to do this. There is a metric shit ton of paperwork involved and unless you want to spend a lot of time dealing with it your employeer usually handles it. Also I live on the west side of the US and have been looking at getting a job on the east coast for a change of pace. I'm having trouble even getting a serious look because employers only seem to want to deal with local candidates. So I can't imagine dealing with another country in all practicality.

You're making it much too difficult. I've lived and worked in a bunch of countries (Australia, all over Europe, the Middle East, and now Southeast Asia, though at the moment I'm on a few-week gig in Paris). The trick is to spend less time sitting at home fretting about paperwork and about how complicated you imagine it will be, and to spend more time shopping for plane tickets and getting your ass over there.

With the exception of Saudi Arabia, where there was no real way around having a job in hand before arrival, the sure-fire plan has always been this:

Land.

Find a cheap place to stay.

Hit the bar.

Make friends.

Get job leads.

Get a job - either over or under the table, depending on local conditions.

Enjoy.

I do IT work and get paid well, so it's not like you have to be stuck tending bar in tourist joints either, as some would have you believe.

Unless you work for a multinational that can transfer you around the globe as easily up two flights of stairs, you've got to take matters into your own hands and stop trying to do the conventional thing like you've done at home. Live a little. Take a risk. Get outside your comfort zone. You will be well rewarded.

There's always the alternative: stay and fight. Stand up, be heard, be diligent, don't take no for answers, get answers. Repeat. Privacy, as other rights (remember 1066?) take tenacity to achieve and hold on to. As a bonus, they'll know all about you.

A certain event in the tip of Manhattan caused sufficient paranoia to allow the government in the US, then the UK, to lurch into action. Then there was one in Spain, Germany, and so on. Each event allowed their respective governments to feast on control. One of those controls was the ability to watch you.

You are, by your virtue of being on/., now a potential suspect. Your Canadian Yahoo address means the NSA and CIA and M5 can peer down your webtubies into your conversations.

You're on the radar screen now; we all are. Fight the fuckers, give them no quarter, make governments understand that we're the citizenry, and they are at our behest. Folly, you might think. What has eroded can be restored, unless the capable decide to split for a nirvana that doesn't exist.

As an American programmer who has successfully emigrated to Brazil, I have two pieces of advice:

1) Marry a local in your destination choice. Your spouse will teach you the local language. That will solve most paperwork issues.

2) If you decide on a country with a weaker curreny, start your own company focused on international clients. You will be competitively priced in your clients country, and the foreign currency will convert favorably. Be prepared to wait a while until you have clients. You might be able to find local work until then.

Neither of those two is easy or right for everybody, but moving to another country isn't for everyone either.

As for Brazil, imho the government tries as hard as they can to ignore you, and complaining to the government is part of the culture so you can do it as much as you like.

This may be true for US citizens, but for UK ones, the whole EU is a free reign, they can go and live in the country, and get a job there for many years, and then become a citizen simply by pointing out they've been there for a long time.

I happen to know many UK citizens in the USA right now.... several that even still have British passports for various reasons. Still, if it is emmigration to North America from the UK that you are looking for, Canada (or so I've been told) is a much easier to get into and has much less red tape.

Don't even get me started with Canadians living in the USA.... prior to 9/11 you wouldn't have even known that your neighbor was Canadian unless you explicitly asked, and getting the answer that they were from casual conversation would get the same reaction as saying they were from Texas or New York. Most Americans considered Canada to be merely another state that figured out a cute trick to avoid paying taxes to Washington, DC.

The point being here is that somebody deliberately trying to move to the USA could go through Canada if they are from one of the commonwealth countries, although times are changing along those lines and I will admit that movement within the EU is now much easier than movement within the former British Empire of old (aka the "Commonwealth" countries). It still is a unique situation for people from the UK that their status as both a EU country and ties to their former colonies give many options if you want to move on and go somewhere else because you don't like the political philosophies that have crept into your local government, and are trying to "vote with your feet".

This is, unfortunately, not something as easily done in America once you get here, and the number of options for emmigration are practically none once you get an American passport.

1. Why does getting an American passport reduce the options that he has through his British passport?Because a british citizen can work anywhere in the EU, an american citizen can't. A british citizen needs *no* paper work more than their passport, he just picks up his bags and leaves, while an american citizen must jump through many legal hoops like getting work permits, etc.

It's been a while since I looked at any stuff like this, but I believe that to become a US citizen you have to renounce citizenship to all other countries. The exception is if a country does not allow you to renounce your citizenship, in which case you get a dual-nationality. I'm not sure how citizens-by-birth are affected by this.

That is entirely incorrect. The US makes no requests or demands with regards to other citizenships, in fact policy is to pretend that they don't exist.

In fact, YOU are entirely incorrect. When my father was naturalized a few years ago he was required to renounce any allegiance to "all foreign potentates."

As of 1990 the State Department has stopped pursuing this issue. You can make all the oaths you want in front of the naturalization court judge but it's basically considered to be a matter of heart and mind rather than legal status. You do not have to follow up with your original country of citizenship and make any renunication to them, so effectively you can maintain your original citizenship. Whether or not your father was aware of this is, of course, another matter. It's not something the naturalization officials advertise.

I invite you to read the long-standing and well-respected dual citizenship FAQ [richw.org] from Rich Wales.

Or, as I've done (not necessarily for the purpose of this discussion on Slashdot) date a lawyer who works on this stuff.

If you only speak English, then your options are obviously limited, the English speaking countries are quickly enumerated.

Many of the European non-English speaking countries are actually quite suitable for English-only speakers who work in a high-tech job. In those countries (France and French-speaking excepted), it is necessary to have some level of English in order to become qualified for any high-tech job. Also, multi-national companies tend to look for (or require) English speakers. I speak from personal experience of living in a non-English speaking country and when I moved there I spoke none of the local language.

On the other hand, Norway is top of the "Human Development Index", but would you want to deal with the long winters and seasonal affective disorder? Much of Canada and Ireland are at a similar latitude, so the SAD issue remains if you choose there.

If you are starting from the UK, Ireland has to be the easiest country to move to.

A report released early May by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) states that Ireland is expected to go through the sharpest economic contraction of any industrialised country since the 1930s. The ESRI's spring quarterly commentary predicts that Ireland's gross domestic product (GDP) will fall 9.2 percent this year.

The report continues, "Ireland's economy will contract by around 14 percent over the three years 2008 to 2010. By historic and international standards this is a truly dramatic development."

It continues: "Prior to this, the largest decline for an industrialised country since the 1930s had been in Finland, where real gross domestic product declined by 11 percent between 1990 and 1993."

The 9.2 percent figure for 2009 doubles the scale of contraction predicted only three months ago in the institute's previous quarterly commentary, where a contraction of 4.6 percent was anticipated. Even the figure of 14 percent over three years assumes a "moderation of the pace of decline" and a "bottoming out" in the latter part of the year.

Unemployment is expected to continue rising. The ESRI predicts unemployment will average 292,000 over 2009, or 13.2 percent, and by 2010 will peak at around 366,000, or 16.8 percent of the workforce.

Wages are expected to fall by 3 percent on average, while the impact of recent budget changes is expected to reduce average household incomes by around 4 percent.

The ESRI also predicts annual net emigration from Ireland, historically an escape from appalling conditions that was sharply reversed over the last two decades, to reach 30,000 between 2009 and 2010.
Emmigrate to Ireland? Sounds like the drunk driving the wrong way down a one-way street who, when asked where he thought he was going, replied "I don't know, but I must be late. Everyone's already coming back."

If you are looking at Canada, the west coast's climat is VERY different from the East.
Here is lower B.C. we barely even have a Winter. In fact, we've only had a white Christmas twice in the last 5 of 6 years!
If you stay in the large cities, the summers are also quite mild (quite warm, but not exhaustively hot).
The Rockies and Vancouver Island protect us from a lot of the cold weather systems that plague Montreal and Quebec and Vancouver Island keeps a lot of the hot, muggy weather away as well.

My solution was to move to an native American fishing village on tribal land [wikipedia.org] and lease my land from the tribes. This is not your normal Indian reservation. We have our own broadband [tulalipbroadband.net], water & sewer system, telco (360-716-NNNN), data services w/fiber at the curb (VZN also offers 3.5Mb/s DSL at my home), police, fire and clinics. We also have a 110 unit premium outlet mall [premiumoutlets.com], a WalMart, Home Depot and various chain eateries. For your gaming and relaxation enjoyment we have a 4-star resort and casino [tulalipcasino.com] with the best food in the county (and rivals anything that Seattle has.)

It does help that the tribes have a nice bit of land on I-5 between Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA with 3 exits, and have made the most of it.

The laws here are interesting. We don't have to follow county or state law (although most of the traffic laws are equivalent.) US Federal laws apply but require the intervention of the BIA, FBI, and etc, and they have to go through the Tribal Police first.

Now granted, if you are going to do something that costs the community, you'll get busted (don't do shit in a casino for fucks sake, they watch everyone all the time.) But if you live on a rez, there is a community communication system that beats anything that twit or myface called knowing your neighbors.

If you want security then live in a small village and get to know everyone, help your community and be a neighbor. That's the hardest thing for Big Bro to bust. Treat your IP access like you're doing it over ham radio, your phone like it's a CB, your mail like it's a pin-up board at your local market.

What the hell do you have to worry about your communications for anyway? Are you trying to overthrow your government or just BTing some US network show. This "I own it because it's part of my culture" shit is crap. They play it on the radio and TV so you'll hear the ads and buy shit. That's crap that someone you don't know made and some marketing dweeb broadcast over and over guessing that you'll take it to heart and make it your own. Just like an football club trying to fill the stands. You don't know these fucks, bugger them! Find REAL people in your community that have talent and support them.

Granted there is some music and shows that I like but I've found a service that provides it with time shifting (and commercial free or commerical skipping) for a price I'm willing to pay, and it keeps my bird happy.

If you are starting from the UK, Ireland has to be the easiest country to move to.

Considering every second person I've met in the UK speaks a totally different dialect of British English, Bad English or Bad English-(insert language reflecting their ethnic background) mixture, learning a new language shouldn't be too hard.

(Seriously, it was hard at first, then I realized they're so used to it they rephrase every sentence at least three times, and don't even realize it.)

In Norway and the rest of scandinavia (and the rest of western Europe), language will not be an issue. Only really old people will have trouble communicating in English. The exceptions in western Europe is France and Germany.

Norway values freedom of speech and privacy. It's not legal to monitor Internet use for locating illegal filesharers, and ISP's won't and can't identify someone from and IP address.

Norway has a relatively high tax rate, (I pay about 30% of my income) plus a 25% sales tax. But, you get almost free healthcare, sick-pay, mandatory 5 weeks paid vacation (12% of last year pay), unemployment, 12month paid birth leave (that can be divided between mom and dad as you like (except min 6 weeks for mom and 6 weeks for dad)).Alcohol is quite restricted in Norway, you can buy beer and similar in grocery stores until 20:00 in weekdays and 18:00 on Saturdays. Alcoholic beverages with an alcohol content higher than 4,7% you'll have to buy in special stores. Alcohol and tobacco are highly taxed so it's quite expensive.

The winter can be quite depressive sometimes, in the northern parts of Norway the sun never gets up in the middle of the winter. But then again you have midnight sun in the summer...

If you want liberalism on alcohol, drugs and hoockers Norway is not you country, then I'd go for the Netherlands.

But Norway isn't that extremely free in my opinion. It's a very comfortable nanny state, but that I can't buy a damn beer at 7PM on a saturday is just the tip of that iceberg. Sweden and the Pirate Party is the first ones I've seen to really kick back on the massive surveillance efforts being passed by the EU, thus coming to Norway too because we're the EU's bitch. Denmark has a wonderfully more relaxed attitude to everything, but they're not exactly heading on the barricades. The netherlands has legalized soft drugs and hookers, if that's your idea of freedom.

The vast majority of Norway's population live south of the polar circle, same in Sweden so you won't have all dark days or midnight sun, that's up north where we send the tourists. Of course there's some cities up there like Tromsø with 65k people if you want to be there, but the typical job in Norway is not. Depending on where you're coming from, expect colder winters wtih snow though. Driving in the winter is a skill I see many immigrants struggle with, no you can not just pretend it's summer and expect to accelerate or break in no time. For the most part a good country though, and one of the better things is that if you become citizen of an EU country, you can always change your mind. I can move anywhere in the EU without issue if I think the going is crap. Then again, a lot of the anti-freedom crap is coming from EU....

Long story short, EU does not make law. The EU passes directives, that each member country has to implement their variation of. This is very typically used by lobbyists and others to push unpopular directives to be made on the EU level, for then the national government to throw up their hands and say "we must pass this, it's a directive". For the most part, the general population doesn't learn about it until it's being implemented nationally, and there's a delay in that system. So basicly now in 2009 they're implementing directives passed maybe like 2007, and if you try to protest it's like "the decision's already been made, you should have complained to the EU two years ago". For most people that sounds like a scene from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy where the files have been on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

A good example is the mandatory data storage directive that says everyone must keep logs for 6-24 months of who, what, when and from where you've been communicating on the Internet or on your cell phone. It was passed in the EU around 2006 I think, passed into law in some countries last year and some still haven't. But you can't undo the directive, the national governments can't really say no without getting ESA (no, not the space agency) on their backs. It's a ugly backdoor to the democratic process and the Lisbon treaty isn't really fixing it. There's a vast democratic deficiency in the EU system.

Just to correct a little of what you said. Norway values privacy, but yet publishes everyone's name, age, income, tax paid, and wealth information on the internet that is accessible to everyone. No, I'm not giving out the URL, I'm on there, too. Norway, in theory, values freedom of speech, but enforces divergent opinions and speech socially. If you say something that Norwegians don't like, they'll let you know it through passive aggression.

It is legal to monitor internet use, but they've just stopped renewing the licences given to law firms to do this. Effectively, you could already share files and download as much as you want without fear of prosecution, but now the "large filesharers" don't have to worry, either.

Norway does have a high tax rate. We all pay a minimum of 36% tax, but most people pay 50%. Foreigners are able to take 10% off this up to a certain sum for their first two years here. As of 2003, you are no longer able to import your own car tax and duty free. You can drive a foreign-registered car for up to a year, apply for a one-year extension, but then you're out of luck. The average car here is 3-4x more expensive than in the United States, but it depends on weight, engine size, and CO2 discharge of the car. A new Range Rover that costs 70 000$US will cost almost 500 000$US here.

Health care is not free. Every time you see your GP or go to the "triage" centre for emergencies (legevakt) you have to pay a co-pay (egenandel) that isn't a trivial amount and varies according to the time of day and other things http://www.nav.no/page?id=354 [www.nav.no] Sick pay and short- and long-term disability is what really sets Norway apart from the rest of the world, but this is seriously abused. You can get a couple of weeks paid time-off for "problems with your neighbours" and very mild miscellaneous psychiatric diagnoses.

The 5-weeks holiday is not exactly mandatory, you do not have to take it, but you will be taxed at 50% for any work you do whilst you should be away, so almost everyone goes away. Depending on where you live, you get, for example, 12% of your salary so that you can go away on holiday. I will not attempt to explain how this works because it's very complicated, look up "ferieloven" if you want to know more.

Maternity leave is 12 months, minimum of 4 weeks for dad. The part about alcohol, which fits in nicely with a discussion about maternity leave, was accurately reported already. A bottle of 20$US spirits (liquor) will cost 100$US here at the State-owned and run off-licence (or liquor store). Interestingly, Sweden has to do away with these now as they are against the European Union's ideas of free trade.

The Winter here is quite depressing ALL THE TIME. If you don't like winter, then seriously do not come to Norway. This last one was hell, even in the southern part of Norway. Snow and cold every day for nearly six months! Dark, overcast days...you're asking for psychological problems if you are in any way affected by the cold and lack of light.

The poster I'm replying to mentioned "hoockers" (sic). You don't need hookers in Norway. It's number one in terms of one night stands. You literally just go out, buy some girls some drinks, and if they're in the mood, they'll ask you to go home with them. If they aren't and you are, then it's slightly more complicated. It involves getting drunk together at least twice.

The problems with Norway that can make living here unbearable are as follows. The Norwegian people up until 30 years ago were just farmers. They had no money, no culture, a poorly expressive language... Now, suddenly, there's a lot of money. The problem is, the farmer mentality prevails. There are, of course, exceptions, but the majority of the country is xenophobic, naïve, and follows the rules blindly. The people are very closed to outsiders, you as a foreigner will never be treated as an equal no matter how long you live here. In order to make Norwegian friends, you wil

You know what I meant, don't be deliberately obtuse. Edmonton has a million people... most people would agree that that's a "city". The only place further north that comes close to being a major city would be Anchorage at 350k, but that's obviously much further north and off the beaten path, as it were.

In Sweden and Denmark, a village of 200 people is counted as an "urban" population but it takes a city of 30,000 in Japan. Most other countries fall somewhere in between. Australia and Canada use 1000, Israel and France use 2000 and the United States and Mexico call a town of 2500 residents urban.

In New Zealand, according to Statistics New Zealand (the government statistics agency), "A city [...] must have a minimum population of 50,000

Brazilian law defines a "city" (cidade) as the urban seat of a municipality and establishes no difference between cities and towns; all it takes for an urban area to be legally called a "city" is to be the seat of a municipality, and some of them are semi-rural settlements with a very small population.

In Canada the granting of city status is handled by the individual provinces and territories, so that the definitions and criteria vary widely across the country. In British Columbia and Saskatchewan towns can become cities after they reach a population of 5,000 people, but in Alberta and Ontario the requirement is 10,000. Nova Scotia has abolished the title of city altogether, In Quebec, there is no legal distinction between a city and a town

There is a formal definition of city in China provided by the Chinese government. For an urban area that can be defined as a city, there should be at least 100,000 non-agricultural population.

Chile's Department of National Statistics defines a city (ciudad in Spanish) as an urban entity with more than 5,000 inhabitants

Venezuela's Department of National Statistics defines a city (ciudad in Spanish) as an urban entity with more than 5,000 inhabitants.

The German word for both "town" and "city" is Stadt, while a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants is called a Großstadt (big city).

Italy: There is no population limit for a city

Norway: The status of "city" is granted by the local authorities if a request for city status has been made and the area has a population of at least 5000

Completely correct: in Edmonton we get considerably more sunlight than where I grew up in Yorkshire, UK (about 0.5 deg latitude north of Liverpool). The main reason being that we actually get a lot of sun! What is very nice about Edmonton is that the summers are like a warm UK summer with lots of sunny days. Coming from the UK I used to find the summers in places like Chicago unbearable - extremely oppressive heat (30+C) and humidity (70+%) meant that rather than sit outside on a sunny summer day you wanted to stay inside with the air conditioner on maximum.

Of course nothing is free...the price you pay for the fantastic summers is a somewhat protracted and slightly nippy winter: -35C (before wind chill!) is common - but only for a few days. The snow usually melts in late April and the winters are at generally bright and sunny so there are some beautiful winter days to enjoy (just wrap up warm!). Having emigrated here from the UK I can thoroughly recommend it. I lived for a while in the US found their actual cultural values (not those they espouse) to be extremely different to mine which made it very hard/impossible to fit in - I always felt very much the foreigner. Canadian society has values that (at least from my point of view) are far more in line with European ones and I found it very easy to fit in and integrate into society here, especially since Canadians are so welcoming.

Try Malaysia. It's the easiest place for westerners to integrate culturally and socially, by a long shot. People speak English well and are genuinely interested in and knowledgeable about the outside world (unlike, say, Thailand). My social life in Kuala Lumpur is the best I've ever had in my life (even compared to undergrad) and my friends are 80% local. I've been invited to countless homes, met everyone's families, gone on long road trips and even international trips with my local friends (2 road trips to Singapore and one trip up to Bangkok this year alone), play on a couple local sports teams, and attended more weddings than I can recall. I'll go weeks in a row with dinner/drinks invitations 7 nights a week.

This stands in stark contrast to my prior existence in Washington DC, where despite having a lot of acquaintainces, I met few people I'd really consider friends, and often felt quite alone, voluntarily sequestering myself at home and spending my weekends on long solo bike rides because I couldn't bear another night out of shallow idiotic conversation with people who really only seemed to tolerate each other because they were familiar faces.

Places like China, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and so on, these countries have tremendous amounts of personal freedom, much more so than in any 'western' country I've been to. If it's political freedom one is looking for, then Asia is probably the wrong place to be.

Here I agree with you. There's an overall slack casualness that means in daily practice you have a lot more liberty than you do in more structured, developed societies. Park wherever the hell you want, sit outside until 5am buying beer from a guy with a pushcart, etc. Just watch your step around Sensitive Topics of National Interest.

There are other freedoms to look at, but I don't need to look at more. Ireland, US, NZ, and Canada seem to be the best under those two criteria (and granted those criteria are more like metacriteria themselves).

Come on, asking other people what country to move to? Grow a pair, travel to the country that seems most interesting (and acceptable) to you, then figure out the rest. If you try to find a job from your "safe home", possibly even expecting relocation costs and all covered, you'll have to be a serious superstar or have really good connections to find anything decent. If OTOH you can walk into somebody's office anytime for a chat you'll have much better chances. The world doesn't evolve around you after all.

Switching countries can be quite a big deal, more so than you apparently think. Expect to burn through a bit of cash in the beginning until you figure out the local lifestyle and land a steady job. Obviously, the closer the cultures are, the easier the beginning. I made the switch thrice: Once to Ireland, once to Holland, then to Japan. The first two were easy but boring, as I went because of a job. Japan was the hardest obviously, but also the most rewarding. I improved my English tremendously (2nd language) and learnt Japanese (3rd language). After a year of keeping myself afloat doing random stuff in Hokkaido I found the most satisfying job I ever had in Tokyo. I'm also in the programming/IT sector.

You'll never know if a country is acceptable for you until you go there.

As a New Zealander currently in Australia, I'd agree with this. Here, I have to present (and have recorded) ID to get a cell phone, or to post an international parcel, and the government has been trying to bring in compulsary internet filtering. I'd rate NZ better than Australia better than USA better than UK.

As another poster has noted, Fiji is very much 'too bad.' The current governemnt was installed by military coup, and no longer even has a free press.

New Zealand was recently rated the most peaceful country on earth to live in. Race relations in NZ, while not perfect, are considerably better than the US, Canada or UK and streaks ahead of Australia. Be aware that a lot of right wing New Zealanders constantly talk the country down because it doesn't conform to their vision of a racist free market paradise.

You are unlikely to make a fortune in New Zealand, but you don't really need one.

I've been away for ten years, but I'm moving back early next year because it's a good place to raise a family, the beaches are clean and not crowded, and the fly fishing is great.

There's also another good reason to move there. Food security is never going to be a problem in New Zealand, since it produces far more than its people could ever hope to eat. Given the way things look to be going 15-20 years from now I think that is going to be an enviable position.

Oh, I definintely recommend the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Everyone must remember that economic freedom -is- personal freedom, and conservatism is the reduction of government. These words have become corrupted, as has the idea of "freedom". I urge you to consider the Heritage Foundation to be an excellent source of truth in our political world.

To answer the topic question, I want to remind you how much of a duty you have to your fellow countryman. If possible, you need to stand up and change things, as a country full of people who don't do that will get trampled on by the first bully it encounters. And bullies are the ones who crave power. As a last resort, though, "voting with your feet" is effective, so long as you're willing to fight for your principles in your new country.

Civil War is brewing. Should be a whole lot of fun with nukes, Raptors and Abrams on the battlefield.

Bullocks. Civil War requires geopolitical division -- and we don't have that. If Obama fails, the Republican Party gets a new rallying cry. If not, then they'll just reform or go the way of the Whigs.

There have been panderings of a coming "race war" or "civil war" or "red invasion" for longer than my father's been alive. And they're all crap, with an amazing ability to underestimate the religious feeling that "America" inspires in its citizens.

yeah, we socialists were definitely the ones who decided to deregulate the banks and thus cause the collapse of the entire fucking world economy! Also, I love how you're telling someone seeking freedom you don't want him here because he doesn't share your views.

The Fed is a bastardized institution that benefits nobody, and has very little real power. If we had a central bank where loans were given directly to those that need them for modest interest rates, we wouldn't be in this situation. But, as usual, greed prevailed. Oh, and by the way, communism != socialism, no matter what Rush Limbaugh tells you.

Where there is great freedom for you, there is great freedom for others to take advantage of you.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Real life governance is not some sliding scale where total anarchy is one end and Orwellian tyranny is the other. Is any social question so one dimensional? Thinking that way boxes you in, because it starts to look like a damned if you do, damned if you don't, scenario. You begin to accept corruption, because the anarchy scares you, or you embrace anarchy, because you don't see any alternative to getting rid of tyranny.

To give you a depressing example of why this line of thinking fails, consider this. A government can be corrupt, tyrannical and totally ineffectual, all at once, such as to leave a country in a state whereby the citizenry have no freedom, and no safety. That doesn't fit anywhere into the worldview that holds anarchy and tyranny as logically opposite extremes, because, hey, you have both. Usually this comes about when a corrupt government is in a state of strife or internal warfare, while still aspiring to ironclad rule - think Afghanistan.

The reverse is also true. An accountable government with limited, but not nonexistent, power, can run a country without falling into the pitfalls above. It must be democratic, it must be as transparent as possible, and it must have a strong judiciary backed by laws that include some sort of bill of rights or equivalent document above all others. Checks and balances are the key. Cleaning out corruption when it occurs is also vital, and failure to do so is usually what trips the whole system up.

The problem is, and always has been, that maintaining good government is a lot of work. Bad government is the default setting when it is not fought against.

I'm honestly trying to understand, here. How is it that there is a single American left in existent, who still believes this?

Seriously, Americans; what will have to happen for you to finally stop drinking the ideological Kool-Aid which your education system pours down your throats? Will a future government literally have to start shooting you in the streets before you grow out of the fairy tales that you were raised with?

If the mythology about American freedom was ever true, it certainly isn't after the second Bush government. You've proven that your government is no better than any other tyranny on the face of the planet, morally speaking. The only real difference is that they're slightly less blatant, and more careful about making sure they don't get caught.